Editorial

When, almost a decade ago, Fergal McGrath wrote his editorial for the first issue of this journal he considered a collection of papers that considered both the theory and practice of knowledge management on the basis that it would encourage a better understanding of one of the focal issues of the time. As I write this editorial I can’t help but feel that the focus, particularly at a managerial level, has dissipated somewhat. There are, I am sure, many reasons for this, not the least of which may be the current economic climate. Perhaps knowledge management remains shrouded in both promise and suspicion as authors continue to rationalise the theory in their effort to expand the practice – an assessment evident in the collection of papers presented in this issue of the journal.

This issue opens with a lively dialogue from Edwards that reflects on the failure, in practice, to understand that the effective implementation of knowledge management depends on equal consideration being given to three aspects – people, processes and technology – and not just one, or one and a little of another. While processes and technology are important, the people aspect is probably more so because we are generally a funny bunch. It is not unheard of for knowledge management implementations to fail because people are not prepared to share their knowledge. The impact of this trait is examined through the published literature on cooperative and competitive knowledge sharing by Ghobadi and D’Ambra. It would seem from their findings that the failure to share is not a one‑way street…it is bi‑directional insofar as people generally are not always willing to modify their thinking based on the experiences of others.

In considering the sharing of knowledge at a practical level, Lech suggests that the key to determining the knowledge sharing process is to decide whether the new knowledge is additive or substitutive. Sharing of the latter is more difficult to achieve as, using information gathered from field studies, it requires at least 25% more effort on the part of the knowledge owner to effect the transfer. Discussion of the challenge of knowledge sharing is continued by Ling. She also identifies the reluctance, both intentional and unintentional, of knowledge owners to share their knowledge with others, particularly organisations. Her research suggests that trust and solidarity are the main precursors for knowledge sharing and the extent to which they are demanded depends on the culture of the organisation.

Culture also features when Neuweg and Fothe consider the need for organisations to explicate and formalise knowledge. Their concern is that insufficient thought is given to understanding the optimal level of explication, which they suggest should be based, among other things, on organisational culture. Of course, any progress on this front requires a clear grasp of the need for, and role of, knowledge management by managers themselves. It would seem from the last paper in this issue that this is ambiguous at best in Iranian banks. Rasoulinezhad attributes cultural issues to this state of affairs, the most important of which is the reluctance to share knowledge with others.

Are human beings really that worried about sharing knowledge with others? The authors in this issue seem to think so and it may well be another significant reason for the apparent loss of focus in knowledge management practice in organisations. What do you think? I look forward to theoretical and practical contributions on this vexed question in the months ahead.

Abstract

Knowledge management needs to consider the three related elements of people, processes and technology. Much existing work has concentrated on either people or technology, often to the exclusion of the other two elements. Yet without thinking about process
the way people, organisations and even technology actually do things any implementation of a knowledge management initiative is at best risky, and at worst doomed to failure. This paper looks at various ways in which a process view has appeared, expl
icitly or implicitly, in knowledge management research and practice so far, and reflects on how more thinking about process might improve knowledge management in the future. Consistent with this overall viewpoint, the issues generally centre less on wha
t a process view would suggest should be done, but rather on the way that it would be implemented in practice.

Abstract

The knowledge being shared for cooperation may also be useful for competitive purposes. Whilst this situation is acknowledged, there is no through analysis of how it has been investigated and treated in prior research studies. This paper reviews the liter
ature on simultaneous cooperative and competitive knowledge sharing. It also contributes to this area through an analytical review that compares the literature linked to this phenomenon and identifies their strengths and limitations. The analysis of the f
indings suggests that efforts in this area have been undertaken independently and with little consideration of the prior studies in different but related realms. The findings suggest the benefits of integrating different bodies of literature in building o
n a broader platform of existing epistemological and ontological foundations.

Abstract

This paper focuses on the issue of knowledge transfer from consultants to the final users of the ERP system during its implementation. For a long time, the knowledge transfer has been recognized as one of the key success factors of the implementation proj
ects of any type. Basing on the literature, two alternative approaches to the knowledge transfer were identified: an exploration oriented one, assuming users active participation in the implementation process and another one, i.e. instruction oriented kn
owledge transfer, depending on the users training provided by the consultants after the implementation has been completed. A study of 10 ERP implementation projects is presented to determine how enterprises solve the knowledge transfer issue in real‑life
environment. At the end the paper presents the evaluation of the amount of external workload from the consultants needed to accomplish the knowledge transfer process with the use of the two alternative approaches. It is based on the field study in two co
mparable enterprises. The main value of the research is that it presents the generalization of the knowledge transfer procedures used in real‑life ERP projects and then evaluates the difference in external workload from the consultants in a very unique si
tuation of two very similar enterprises, with comparable business processes and information requirements, and which implemented the same ERP system with help of the same external consultants but using different knowledge transfer approach.

Abstract

In this competitive age, knowledge is continuously being identified by both scholars and practitioners as the most competitive asset. Numerous organisations in todays knowledge‑intensive economy are keen not only to determine knowledge‑sharing but to als

Abstract

Knowledge Management (KM) tends to regard the explication of knowledge as thoroughly positive. In this paper, we argue that this attitude rests on misconceptions regarding the nature of implicit knowledge and knowledge explication. Rather than following
undifferentiated imperatives to maximise the amount of explicit knowledge, practitioners of KM are better off considering the ambivalent effects of knowledge explication. For this purpose, we suggest applying the Tacit Knowing View (Neuweg, 2004) and C
ontingency Theory to the problem of determining the right level of explication. The paper is divided into four parts. In the first part we trace KMs need for the explication and formalisation of knowledge. In the second part, we address theoretical misco
nceptions. First, we apply Ryles finding that sloppy language use may lead to illegitimate assumptions toward explication. Secondly, we argue that, albeit superficial references to the work of Polanyi can be found throughout KM, actual epistemological po
sitions rather seem to follow Popper. In the third part, we systematise limitations, problems, and side effects of explication. In the fourth part, we suggest the heuristic concept of explication optima as a framework for developing KM activities.

Abstract

In the current advanced era, knowledge and the applications of it are the essence of organizations for achieving competing advantage and defined as a new strategic approach to innovation and a potential element for creating larger market share. Understand
ing the knowledge management process in terms of banking sector will highlight how it influences organizational performance. In a developing country like Iran, it is also showing signs of competition and improved performance through knowledge management;
however whether the knowledge management process is practiced in Iranian banks is still to be explored. In response to this need, this research explores the key processes and technologies of knowledge management being used in the commercial banks of Iran
in order to give an insight for bankers and strategist to understand its importance.